4 ms·

Almost certainly. I try really hard to be as un-cynical as possible about this, but there's a great quote I heard from someone smart whose name I can't recall r

Almost certainly. I try really hard to be as un-cynical as possible about this, but there's a great quote I heard from someone smart whose name I can't recall right now - economics is incentives all the way down - and it applies perfectly here I think. What possible incentive could any phone manufacturer have to build a phone that significantly over-lasts the rough 2 year cycle that their bulk buyers, i.e the networks, sell the phones on? That's not rhetorical, I'm really asking - does anyone know of any?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
function_seven 11y ago
I can think of a couple. I'm not sure if either one is enough to overcome the incentives to do otherwise, though. 1. General brand goodwill. If it's known that the phone you buy today will be functional for the next 5 years, then long-term customer loyalty may incentivize a company to make sure their units last that long 2. App-store market share. The longer your phone lasts, the lest likely its purchaser will replace it with another ecosystem's product. This would increase the lifetime revenue you get from that buyer. Again, I'm not sure if these two incentives are enough to outweigh the "new every two!" hardware refresh profits.
stouset 11y ago
Customer goodwill? Consider it this way: the actual evidence we have disagrees with your conclusion. Apple has seemingly gone out of their way to ensure that new releases continue to run on increasingly-older generations of hardware. Look at calvin_c's comment[1] for a complete breakdown of this. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10502753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10502753
- marvin 11y ago
  It makes a big difference that Apple won't let you downgrade to a previous OS. Only sheer stubbornness kept me from upgrading my iPhone 4 (iOS 7) to an iPhone 6 when all I really wanted was a phone that didn't take half a second to respond to input. Downgrading to iOS 6 would have accomplished the same thing. It's hard not to believe that planned obsolesence isn't at least part of that strategy. It's certainly incidental. I don't hold a grudge against Apple for doing this, but not acknowledging it is turning a blind eye.
  - chillacy 11y ago
    Think about it from the company/engineer's point of view: would you want to maintain the old version of the code (adding security fixes and the like) for years after it's current, for probably less than 1000 people per version? Remember that the old versions of code probably build with old versions of the compiler, old trains, etc. And you can't not maintain this code, since there will be bugs found, jailbreaks, etc. Every engineering team I know has more features than man-hours, it's hard to imagine them willingly making this tradeoff for such a small gain in their overall user happiness (people posting on HN are the exception, most people just update their devices for the shiniest new features)
    - applecore 11y ago
      It's a near-universal practice for several versions of important system software (like operating systems and databases) to be maintained and supported simultaneously. It's unusual for updates to stop entirely as soon as the next major version is released.
      - chillacy 11y ago
        I see this as a necessity mainly for server software which you don't want to change too often. Ubuntu does a great job at this with their LTS releases. But in the consumer mobile OS space, there are really only a few big players. It looks like google does patch old versions of the OS, albeit up to a limit: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-some-old-android-bugs/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-som... But on the other hand with the way the android adoption curve looks, that's still a lot of people. I just checked wikipedia right now, something like 35% of users are running a version which google stopped patching. So to have the same coverage of security updates, google has to support more OS versions. And even then, they're leaving a lot of people in the dust. I'm sure google would like people to upgrade too, less versions for them to maintain, but they've got the whole carrier situation to deal with in that ecosystem.
aljones 11y ago
Seems obvious that displeasing your customer is more likely to send them to a competitor than pleasing them.
- davnicwil 11y ago
  Is it obvious? What if you displease them in one way, by making older phones have a limited lifespan, but redress that by pleasing them enough to make the difference in other ways, for example by developing newer phones with superior features that get them excited enough not to care so much about the shortcomings of the old model (shortcomings which wouldn't necessarily be as apparent if the phone had a longer lifespan)? Might it then be the best strategy to displease your customers on purpose, and accept the negative impact of that since it's also contributing to a wider goal of selling more phones and making more profit?
  - mturmon 11y ago
    Above, you wondered about "what possible incentive" there could be against obsolescence, and said you weren't being rhetorical, you really wanted to know. @aljones gives such an incentive. Now, you try to cook up particular parameter values under which this reasoning would not apply ("what if you displease them in one way..."). What is the point of this?
    - davnicwil 11y ago
      Sorry, with respect I don't really understand your criticism. I asked for incentives because I'm not aware of any strong ones, aljones replied with what they thought was such an incentive. But, am I obliged to agree? If I disagree, should I not point this out and continue the discussion in a constructive manner? Additionally, cook up particular parameter values - I don't understand what you mean - we are talking specifically about the 2 year lifecycle of a phone, and the manufacturers' incentives for keeping it as such - I didn't bring that in out of nowhere, that's what we were originally talking about!
- madez 11y ago
  Apple is displeasing some would-be customers already by making their hardware so non-free and remote-controlled.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Bud 11y ago
Emphatically yes. The incentive is called actually giving a fuck about quality, and doing the best job you can. This is thoroughly ingrained in Apple's culture, and NOT ingrained in competitors' culture. 2 year cycle? Nope. Apple's mobile products have a very solid 4-year cycle. Far superior to competitors.
- davnicwil 11y ago
  Apple phones definitely do seem to have a longer lifespan, I agree that quality being the cornerstone of their branding provides a very strong incentive for them to do this, with other manufacturers (my experience is mostly with Samsung) seeming to take a more it'll be fine, after 2 years the S(current+2) will be out and they'll want that anyway because it will be far better hardware type approach. It's one of the reasons I'm now strongly considering switching over to the iPhone after my current Samsung S4 finally dies (it's still just about crawling along with some problems after about 28 months since I bought it)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

function_seven 11y ago

I can think of a couple. I'm not sure if either one is enough to overcome the incentives to do otherwise, though. 1. General brand goodwill. If it's known that the phone you buy today will be functional for the next 5 years, then long-term customer loyalty may incentivize a company to make sure their units last that long 2. App-store market share. The longer your phone lasts, the lest likely its purchaser will replace it with another ecosystem's product. This would increase the lifetime revenue you get from that buyer. Again, I'm not sure if these two incentives are enough to outweigh the "new every two!" hardware refresh profits.

stouset 11y ago

Customer goodwill? Consider it this way: the actual evidence we have disagrees with your conclusion. Apple has seemingly gone out of their way to ensure that new releases continue to run on increasingly-older generations of hardware. Look at calvin_c's comment[1] for a complete breakdown of this. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10502753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10502753

marvin 11y ago
It makes a big difference that Apple won't let you downgrade to a previous OS. Only sheer stubbornness kept me from upgrading my iPhone 4 (iOS 7) to an iPhone 6 when all I really wanted was a phone that didn't take half a second to respond to input. Downgrading to iOS 6 would have accomplished the same thing. It's hard not to believe that planned obsolesence isn't at least part of that strategy. It's certainly incidental. I don't hold a grudge against Apple for doing this, but not acknowledging it is turning a blind eye.
- chillacy 11y ago
  Think about it from the company/engineer's point of view: would you want to maintain the old version of the code (adding security fixes and the like) for years after it's current, for probably less than 1000 people per version? Remember that the old versions of code probably build with old versions of the compiler, old trains, etc. And you can't not maintain this code, since there will be bugs found, jailbreaks, etc. Every engineering team I know has more features than man-hours, it's hard to imagine them willingly making this tradeoff for such a small gain in their overall user happiness (people posting on HN are the exception, most people just update their devices for the shiniest new features)
  - applecore 11y ago
    It's a near-universal practice for several versions of important system software (like operating systems and databases) to be maintained and supported simultaneously. It's unusual for updates to stop entirely as soon as the next major version is released.
    - chillacy 11y ago
      I see this as a necessity mainly for server software which you don't want to change too often. Ubuntu does a great job at this with their LTS releases. But in the consumer mobile OS space, there are really only a few big players. It looks like google does patch old versions of the OS, albeit up to a limit: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-some-old-android-bugs/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-som... But on the other hand with the way the android adoption curve looks, that's still a lot of people. I just checked wikipedia right now, something like 35% of users are running a version which google stopped patching. So to have the same coverage of security updates, google has to support more OS versions. And even then, they're leaving a lot of people in the dust. I'm sure google would like people to upgrade too, less versions for them to maintain, but they've got the whole carrier situation to deal with in that ecosystem.

aljones 11y ago

Seems obvious that displeasing your customer is more likely to send them to a competitor than pleasing them.

davnicwil 11y ago
Is it obvious? What if you displease them in one way, by making older phones have a limited lifespan, but redress that by pleasing them enough to make the difference in other ways, for example by developing newer phones with superior features that get them excited enough not to care so much about the shortcomings of the old model (shortcomings which wouldn't necessarily be as apparent if the phone had a longer lifespan)? Might it then be the best strategy to displease your customers on purpose, and accept the negative impact of that since it's also contributing to a wider goal of selling more phones and making more profit?
- mturmon 11y ago
  Above, you wondered about "what possible incentive" there could be against obsolescence, and said you weren't being rhetorical, you really wanted to know. @aljones gives such an incentive. Now, you try to cook up particular parameter values under which this reasoning would not apply ("what if you displease them in one way..."). What is the point of this?
  - davnicwil 11y ago
    Sorry, with respect I don't really understand your criticism. I asked for incentives because I'm not aware of any strong ones, aljones replied with what they thought was such an incentive. But, am I obliged to agree? If I disagree, should I not point this out and continue the discussion in a constructive manner? Additionally, cook up particular parameter values - I don't understand what you mean - we are talking specifically about the 2 year lifecycle of a phone, and the manufacturers' incentives for keeping it as such - I didn't bring that in out of nowhere, that's what we were originally talking about!
madez 11y ago
Apple is displeasing some would-be customers already by making their hardware so non-free and remote-controlled.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Bud 11y ago

Emphatically yes. The incentive is called actually giving a fuck about quality, and doing the best job you can. This is thoroughly ingrained in Apple's culture, and NOT ingrained in competitors' culture. 2 year cycle? Nope. Apple's mobile products have a very solid 4-year cycle. Far superior to competitors.

davnicwil 11y ago
Apple phones definitely do seem to have a longer lifespan, I agree that quality being the cornerstone of their branding provides a very strong incentive for them to do this, with other manufacturers (my experience is mostly with Samsung) seeming to take a more it'll be fine, after 2 years the S(current+2) will be out and they'll want that anyway because it will be far better hardware type approach. It's one of the reasons I'm now strongly considering switching over to the iPhone after my current Samsung S4 finally dies (it's still just about crawling along with some problems after about 28 months since I bought it)